Many have accepted that ordinary counterfactuals and might counterfactuals are duals. In this paper, I show that this thesis leads to paradoxical results when combined with a few different unorthodox yet increasingly popular theses, including the thesis that counterfactuals are strict conditionals. Given Duality and several other theses, we can quickly infer the validity of another paradoxical principle, ‘The Counterfactual Direct Argument’, which says that ‘A> (B or C)’ entails ‘A> (not B> C)’. First, I provide a collapse theorem for the ‘counterfactual direct argument’ (CDA). The counterfactual direct argument entails the logical equivalence of the subjunctive and material conditional, given a variety of assumptions. Second, I provide a semantics that validates the counterfactual direct argument without collapse. This theory further develops extant dynamic accounts of conditionals. I give a new semantics for disjunction, on which A or B is only true in a context when A and B are both unsettled. The resulting framework validates CDA while invalidating other commonly accepted principles concerning the conditional and disjunction.

中文翻译：

---

反事实直接论证

许多人已经接受普通的反事实和可能的反事实是对偶的。在本文中，我表明，当与一些不同的非正统但越来越流行的论点（包括反事实是严格条件的论点）相结合时，该论点会导致矛盾的结果。给定二元性和其他几个论点，我们可以快速推断出另一个自相矛盾的原则“反事实直接论证”的有效性，它说“A>（B 或 C）”包含“A>（不是 B> C）”。首先，我为“反事实直接论证”（CDA）提供了一个崩溃定理。给定各种假设，反事实直接论证需要虚拟语气和物质条件的逻辑等价。其次，我提供了一种语义来验证反事实直接论点而不会崩溃。该理论进一步发展了条件句的现存动态解释。我为析取提供了一种新的语义，即 A 或 B 仅在 A 和 B 都未解决的上下文中为真。由此产生的框架验证了 CDA，同时使其他普遍接受的有关条件和分离的原则无效。